MRC: ‘Tearing The Walls Down’ Or Building Them Up & Up?

PS: Clearly the MRC and its associates do not like the negative publicity they are receiving. Their response? To pull the promo video from YouTube! As always, actions speak louder than words, and this action ‘screams’ louder than most!

Towards the end of this video we are informed that the Smith St. Precinct will now contain two 22 storeys in height. By the time the plans come in, no-one should be surprised if this becomes much, much higher. So much for Council’s 20 storey “height limit” that was announced with such fanfare years ago! We also have to chuckle at the gloating, phrase of ‘the might of the MRC’. There are also countless other ‘changes’ to what the Development Plan envisaged.

This ‘might’ and council’s total impotence and lack of trying perhaps, is brought out via another public question that was asked last Tuesday night. Residents should be told:

what has council done about this further breach of the ‘agreement’?

why has council remained silent on any aspect of the agreement for the past 3 years?

what ‘negotiations’, if any, have taken place between the MRC and council in relation to meeting the terms of the ‘agreement’?

The public question –

In June 2008, a Joint Communique was signed by the Melbourne Racing Club and Glen Eira Council which related to the use of Public Open Space in the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse. With regards to relocation of training from the CaulfieldRacecourse, included in the Joint Communique, is the statement that; “The MRC will provide Council with an annual update on progress” Could Council please provide all annual progress updates received from the MRC since the Joint Communique was signed.

Council’s ‘response –

Council has received no updates.

The management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land is currently thesubject of a Performance Audit by the Auditor General for Victoria.

Related

27 Responses to “MRC: ‘Tearing The Walls Down’ Or Building Them Up & Up?”

Slums for sure. Add in what Monash wants to do and the Dandenong road developments and you wouldn’t want to come anywhere near this place. Thank you Lipshutz Pilling Esakoff Hyams Newton for turning Caulfield into the slums it will inevitably become. A village it will never be and its designed for foreign investment and more money to the mrc.

Now I know why Pilling refused to delay the planning conference on the C60 Ghetto Development Plans until the plans were corrected. The major error being the 20 storey height limit being removed and replaced with the catchy phrase height to be determined by “design merit”.

It’s also down the gurgler with the bullshit about certainty and clearly defined building envelope in Council’s blurb about Development Plans. Thank you Pilling, Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff for ramming through the 2011 Incorporated Plan with out it ever being sighted by residents.

Us residents hope you are enjoying your roles as Trustees of the Racecourse Reserve and stint as Mayor cause it would be a damn shame if we were sold down the river for nothing.

Council’s media release of 29th April 2011 included the following claims –

“On height limits, Council did not support the view of the Independent Panel that there should be no height limit at the end nearest Monash University. Council has imposed height limits on 100 per cent of the area ranging from two to three storeys at the Kambrook Road end to not more than twenty storeys at the Monash University end”.

“In addition, car parking restrictions will be established in surrounding residential streets in consultation with residents and at the cost of the C60 applicant.”

great stuff. let’s build 50 storeys an have 3 foot high ceilings. That’s not what the media release said. Like all media releases total bullshit. Council doesn’t give a damn and signed off on all aspects of internal amenity and public open space. All Newton was interested in was getting the bucks and even that the “negotiating” team did a lousy job on. Why on earth a development of this size should only pay 4 and 5% open space levies and council is trying to get 5.7% everywhere else is unbelievable. All involved were out of their depth and entirely incompetent. Residents will never stop paying the price for such incompetence.

The MRC is ripping up the sand training track that’s next to the synthetic training track. What to do with the sand being dug up – there’s a giant sandpit growing in the public parkland and public recreation ground..

Needless to say the MRC is once again showing what it thinks of residents vs. MRC costs. Who can argue with the cost reduction achieved by storing it in the centre’s public park rather then storing it on their land or the Guineas Carpark (currently occupied by yet another MRC commercial venture) or shipping it offsite..

Aside from the limited no. of access points and their shitty state, time restrictions, limited signage, the number of fences and track barriers obstructing access to the usually dirty toilets and barbies I wonder why you say no one uses it.

“The management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land is currently the subject of a Performance Audit by the Auditor General for Victoria.”

Having worked in the Auditor General’s office a number of years ago (9), this audit has all the marking of a request audit from either the ombudsman or the new Ibac. The Auditor General for Victoria would not audit just one racecourse without doing them all. A performance audit is a very detailed forensic examination of the entire entity. I think all Councillors, Trustees and the MRC will be nervously awaiting this report, as will we all.

see today’s Glen Eira leader. MRC CEO is determined to tear down the walls and open up the racecourse to the community!
Is he taking the piss or are the MRC trying to keep control of how the public will access their park.

Hollywood ain’t got nuthin on this lousy mob and their crap. Bigger than Ben Hur this will be. The gang should be charged as acomplices to highway robbery done by Newton Napthine and Guy and their racing buddies.

Congratulations Glen Eira Debates and commentators. Pulling the ad shows that plenty of people read the posts and that some are getting very nervous. So they should. From day one, the C60 has been a corrupt and vile process aided and abetted by 4 councillors and the administration. They have granted the Melbourne Racing Club everything they’ve ever wanted, and will want in the future, on a silver platter. The creation of the Special Committee was obscene and the selection of councillor trustees by Guy succeeded in adding insult to injury.

The video was scrapped before I had a chance to view it. Nevertheless, the various comments show how flexible the arrangements are and how all have been passed by council. The original incorporated plan was sold to residents as something that was set down in law. It could not and would not be changed. The planning panel made its recommendations on the basis of a plan that residents never saw – as someone has already commented upon. The establishment of the special committee was another blow to openness and governance. It was unnecessary and convened to deliver the required results. A phone call from Newton to Pilling was added inducement for this man to change his mind and vote a particular way as has also been mentioned on this site. Every step worked against residents. Their objections rights were formally removed; their verbal objections totally ignored; and the final development plan was so far removed from the incorporated plan, but still got through. Next came another amendment that eroded even further the constraints upon the development. Setbacks were gone so that balconies can now overhang fences and heights can be exceeded by lift wells and antennaes.

All councillors in the end are responsible for what will remain as a blight on Caulfield and its repercussions will be widely felt forever. The only feasible outcome from all of this is profit to the Melbourne Racing Club and greedy developers, and no recompense to the community. This is a tragedy for thousands of locals and no amount of spin, videos and promotion campaigns can hide this fact.

If the planning panel you are referring to is the Independent Planning Panel that Council, and in particular Jamie Hyams, always refers to to justify Council’s rushed passing of the C60 Incorporated Plan then some clarification is required.

You will notice that the references and justification lack one very important thing and that is the version of the Incorporated Plan. The one shown to residents and assessed by the Independent Planning Panel was the 2008 Incorporated Plan (1200 dwellings and 13 stories on the Triangle). The one passed by Councils closed door Committee (Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling, with CEO Andrew Newton pulling the strings in the background) was the 2011 Incorporated Plan (with an over 50% increase in heights (20 stories) and dwellings (over 2000)). The 2011 plan was never shown to residents nor was it reviewed by an Independent Planning Panel. Council held a planning conference on it – no documentation was provided and 3 weeks later it was passed. The accompanying media release was pure spin – we’ve imposed height limits and imposed greater parking requirements for comparable developments without providing details of what the height limits were or what the parking requirements were.

Details of what was in the 2011 Incorporated Plan were only provided to residents when the first stage of the C60 Development Plan came out earlier this year (height limits equivalent to 20 stories and basic res code parking requirements). Again this was rushed through by Council.

While the MRC is jubilant, residents are not. Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling and Newton have a lot to answer for.

““With the Caulfield track to undergo a once in a decade full renovation after this year’s Cup Carnival, it’s important that we manage the schedule at Sportingbet Park and Mornington so they can shoulder the workload whilst it is out of action,” Arnhold said.

There is a reference above to the “Independent Planning Panel”. Panels are appointed by the Minister and aren’t therefore truly independent. Sometime they’re made up of VCAT members on secondment. The few rules that govern Panels are mostly procedural. They’re free to make whatever recommendations they feel like. Council must consider their report before deciding whether or not to adopt an amendment. The Panel was dismissive in its report about traffic, stating without evidence it could be managed via “conditions”.

There are no height limits for C60. What Council decided was to restore notice and review rights to the public if a planning permit is required because a development exceeds the envelope specified in the Incorporated Plan and/or Development Plan. The Minister made unilateral changes to the Incorporated Plan so the development could be bigger than originally intended without triggering a need for a Permit.

The “indicative heights” deliberately understate the likely number of storeys in each area. Ground level over the site roughly ranges from 43m to 50m, and a rough rule-of-thumb is to allow 3m per storey. In Smith St precinct for example, the “height limit” is 120m, relative to ground level of about 47 to 49m. That suggests 24 storeys. In Mixed Use/Commercial areas the developer might want higher ceiling height for ground floor shops, possibly extending to the mezzanine level, limiting them to “only” 22 storeys. The understating of storeys is relatively more severe at the residential fringes, where it will also be more noticeable. For unknown reasons Council endorsed this trickery.